It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

evolution, the facts that inform the theory'?

page: 26
12
<< 23  24  25   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 03:04 PM
link   
It seems life started very early in earth history, and though earth has killed it off a number of times it springs back in abundance. What we call life is just a human construct, the universe sees complex chemical processes, so life happens when conditions are right. If we look at life on our planet today the vast majority came from after snowball earth 600 million years ago, once again springing up from simple life forms into never ending complex ones. Comparing all left there is DNA associations, as example, a grape vine has about 17% DNA of a human, and the closer a a life is to humans the more related DNA there is up to the Chimp that is about 99%, when we look at the orangutan they are farther removed from Chimps and humans so they only have 97%, we can continue this back to the grape vine or just about any life on our planet.

This is pretty strong evidence that all life is related as it has evolved from simple life forms over 100s if millions of years. If we throw God into the mix the problem is we seem to try an debate the Why with the How. Evolution is a How life forms and God is Why life is here. If we were going to debate God then debate intelligent design against random design and leave evolution out of it.




posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 09:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xenogears

By activated I believe they mean with a phosphate group attached.

The article explains "“activated” nucleotides – those with an extra bit tacked on to the phosphate". This is done intelligently for the purpose of getting the desired reaction, namely that they will stick together and form a chain.



posted on Jun, 17 2018 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Xenogears

By activated I believe they mean with a phosphate group attached.

The article explains "“activated” nucleotides – those with an extra bit tacked on to the phosphate". This is done intelligently for the purpose of getting the desired reaction, namely that they will stick together and form a chain.


Don't know but I think the extra bit added is just another phosphate. I mean up to 3 phosphates can be added one on top of another. Thinking it's akin to ATP, other nucleotides also can have multiple phosphates.

But would have to read the details of the article to make sure.
edit on 17-6-2018 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 01:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
...and the closer a a life is to humans the more related DNA there is up to the Chimp that is about 99%, ...

Don't believe everything you hear. Cause then you might end up repeating it as if it's a fact/certainty/truth/reality, something that is factual/certain/absolute/true/conclusive/correct, without error; and there goes your credibility in the eyes of anyone who knows better:



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 01:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

Don't believe everything you hear. Cause then you might end up repeating it as if it's a fact/certainty/truth/reality, something that is factual/certain/absolute/true/conclusive/correct, without error; and there goes your credibility in the eyes of anyone who knows better:



You never know...kind of reminds me of that one guy out of 10,000 engineers that states otherwise, and someone like you posts the one guy and says SEE!!

He talked about not 1% but more like 12%, but that still means a connection...

Do you have any further tapes of other PHDs in that field that will address his findings and either dispute them or agree with them? Or did you finally fine the one guy that fits your theory and you are good.

Either way it would be a interesting debate by people much more capable than you or me.

BTW just who is "anyone who knows better?" this one guy? You?

edit on 19-6-2018 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 02:27 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar
Francis Hitching as a journalist is quite capable of summarizing the facts that were discovered and discussed in the parts of the article that were edited out by the moderator; and sharing his opinion on the matter. Your opinion about him or you trying to discredit him does not have the power to change the realities of the matter. Perhaps now we can get to those facts?

To illustrate: It was once believed that the earth was flat. Now it has been established for a certainty that it is spherical in shape. That is a fact. It was once believed that the earth was the center of the universe and that the heavens revolved around the earth. Now we know for sure that the earth revolves in an orbit around the sun. This, too, is a fact. Many things that were once only debated theories have been established by the evidence as solid fact, reality, truth.
Would an investigation of the evidence for evolution leave one on the same solid ground? Interestingly, ever since Charles Darwin’s book The Origin of Species was published in 1859, various aspects of the theory have been a matter of considerable disagreement even among top evolutionary scientists. Today, that dispute is more intense than ever. And it is enlightening to consider what advocates of evolution themselves are saying about the matter.
...
A London Times writer, Christopher Booker (who accepts evolution), said this about it: “It was a beautifully simple and attractive theory. The only trouble was that, as Darwin was himself at least partly aware, it was full of colossal holes.” Regarding Darwin’s Origin of Species, he observed: “We have here the supreme irony that a book which has become famous for explaining the origin of species in fact does nothing of the kind.”​—Italics added.
Booker also stated: “A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place​—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . a state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.” He concluded: “As to how and why it really happened, we have not the slightest idea and probably never shall.”⁠5 ... And Britain’s New Scientist observed that “an increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”⁠7
...
Has an evolutionary origin of life on earth been established as fact? [whereislogic: nope, you don't get to exclude the so-called "chemical evolution theory of life" from the discussion]

Regarding the question of how life originated, astronomer Robert Jastrow said: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.” He added: “Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation.”⁠8
But the difficulty does not stop with the origin of life. Consider such body organs as the eye, the ear, the brain. All are staggering in their complexity, far more so than the most intricate man-made device. A problem for evolution has been the fact that all parts of such organs have to work together for sight, hearing or thinking to take place. Such organs would have been useless until all the individual parts were completed. So the question arises: Could the undirected element of chance that is thought to be a driving force of evolution have brought all these parts together at the right time to produce such elaborate mechanisms?
Darwin acknowledged this as a problem. For example, he wrote: “To suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”⁠9 More than a century has passed since then. Has the problem been solved? No. On the contrary, since Darwin’s time what has been learned about the eye shows that it is even more complex than he understood it to be. Thus Jastrow said: “The eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have done better.”⁠10
If this is so of the eye, what, then, of the human brain? Since even a simple machine does not evolve by chance, how can it be a fact that the infinitely more complex brain did? Jastrow concluded: “It is hard to accept the evolution of the human eye as a product of chance; it is even harder to accept the evolution of human intelligence as the product of random disruptions in the brain cells of our ancestors.”⁠11

Source: Disagreements About Evolution—Why? Chapter 2: Creation

References:

5. The Star, Johannesburg, “The Evolution of a Theory,” by Christopher Booker, April 20, 1982, p. 19.

7. New Scientist, “Darwin’s Theory: An Exercise in Science,” by Michael Ruse, June 25, 1981, p. 828.

8. The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, by Robert Jastrow, 1981, p. 19.

9. The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, 1902 edition, Part One, p. 250.

10. The Enchanted Loom, p. 96.

11. Ibid., pp. 98, 100.

Just a small selection of the relevant facts this time.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 03:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: whereislogic

Don't believe everything you hear. Cause then you might end up repeating it as if it's a fact/certainty/truth/reality, something that is factual/certain/absolute/true/conclusive/correct, without error; and there goes your credibility in the eyes of anyone who knows better:



You never know...kind of reminds me of that one guy out of 10,000 engineers that states otherwise, and someone like you posts the one guy and says SEE!!

He's not the only one, but he does nicely focus on the crucial issue here of the way they cherry-pick what and how they do their comparisons. The 99% slogan hasn't been used for a while by those initially promoting it. They know the issues with that number as well. The 99% number is more something for the flock to debate or argue in favor of, not knowing any better.

He talked about not 1% but more like 12%, but that still means a connection...

No it doesn't mean a connection through ancestry, but the size difference of the 2 genomes being compared on its own already refutes the 1% difference and 99% DNA similarity myths that you stated as if it was factual/absolute/certain/true/correct, without error/conclusive. Besides that, there's a more crucial issue being discussed in the video about these comparisons and what they are capable of in terms of determining a percentage similarity or difference.


Do you have any further tapes of other PHDs in that field that will address his findings and either dispute them or agree with them?

He's not discussing his findings but the research conducted by those doing the sequencing and comparisons. Those people are fully aware that the chimp genome is at least more than 1% larger. They also know that the methods of comparison described in the video I shared earlier are quite misleading and biased. But anyway, here's more about it (31:42 - 37:43):

edit on 19-6-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

So what is his alternative? We have either a progressive path for life or it is spontaneous into its current form. We have fossils going back 4 billion years so how/when does all this life come into being?





edit on 19-6-2018 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: whereislogic

So what is his alternative? We either have either a progressive path for life or it is spontaneous into its current form. We have fossils going back 4 billion years so how when does all this life come into being?




Not only fossils but as has been repeatedly stated genome analysis shows a web of relation between animals, plants and life, as predicted by evolution. The more related two species are supposed to be, the more closely they resemble each other, even in number of random INERT MUTATIONS that do not affect function.

Everything in the universe functions according to the laws of physics, and believers believe that their God is impotent to design laws from which life itself could emerge, they believe he either has to be constantly performing miracles to steer life from creation towards its current state or else deny all the other sciences and believe in creationism.

Speciation is merely what happens when a population separates in two or more without interbreeding for long enough. The various groups are constantly accumulating random mutations, and without sharing genes, the differences eventually become too much. There are different species that look pretty similar to each other, but independent of that can't interbreed.

edit on 19-6-2018 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-6-2018 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xenogears

Not only fossils but as has been repeatedly stated genome analysis shows a web of relation between animals, plants and life, as predicted by evolution. The more related two species are supposed to be, the more closely they resemble each other, even in number of random INERT MUTATIONS that do not affect function.




When we look at the horse and donkey we see two animals on the edge of being totally different species as they can still make off spring but that offspring is sterile.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

my question here is, did he disprove evolution? or just prove that he does not understand the theory of evolution?



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

its not a myth that humans and chimps share 99% of their genome. this is proven fact. here are some more facts:

chickens/humans 60%

fruit flies/humans 60%

bananas/humans 60%



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: whereislogic

its not a myth that humans and chimps share 99% of their genome. this is proven fact. here are some more facts:

chickens/humans 60%

fruit flies/humans 60%

bananas/humans 60%





The OP is suggesting that Anderson is using a different counting system so the 99% is incorrect. The question would be why would main stream science use an incorrect method if that was true?



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: whereislogic

its not a myth that humans and chimps share 99% of their genome. this is proven fact. here are some more facts:

chickens/humans 60%

fruit flies/humans 60%

bananas/humans 60%





The OP is suggesting that Anderson is using a different counting system so the 99% is incorrect. The question would be why would main stream science use an incorrect method if that was true?


there is no such thing as "main stream science". there is science and there is not science.

science does not accept half measures.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: whereislogic

its not a myth that humans and chimps share 99% of their genome. this is proven fact. here are some more facts:

chickens/humans 60%

fruit flies/humans 60%

bananas/humans 60%





The OP is suggesting that Anderson is using a different counting system so the 99% is incorrect. The question would be why would main stream science use an incorrect method if that was true?


Look even if you used another measure, there would be vast similarity. Even sharing some inert and even some detrimental mutations.

Look at babies and their innate morality, it is corrupt, clear product of evolution.




posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm


there is no such thing as "main stream science". there is science and there is not science.

science does not accept half measures.


Not sure your point science can be correct and also incorrect. Main stream would be what the vast majority uses for science. We can change the name to whatever you like...how about the "vast majority"...lol

My question to the OP was why would the "vast majority" use something incorrectly if Anderson is correct?



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 10:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: whereislogic

its not a myth that humans and chimps share 99% of their genome. this is proven fact. here are some more facts:

chickens/humans 60%

fruit flies/humans 60%

bananas/humans 60%





The OP is suggesting that Anderson is using a different counting system so the 99% is incorrect.

No I wasn't. Anderson isn't using any personal counting system. Math works the way it works. If the fact that the chimp genome has at least 1% more nucleotide bases than the human genome (some estimates ranging from 8-18%) has no meaning for anyone here using the 99% slogan, then I doubt any further attempt by me to explain why that is an issue for that claim is rather futile. As would be further getting into the other issue mentioned in the 1st video about that subject and where the 99% number comes from.

This should be simple, it's basic math. Rephrase the slogan all you want, the human and chimp genomes are at least more than 1% different, according to some estimates at least 8-18% different and then some, cause the remaining nucleotide bases are not in the same order or location in the chromosomes, which is a crucial aspect of the "multi-dimensional" genetic code (referring to Dr. Carter's explanation what he means by that word, which is also partly discussed in the timeframes I gave for that video).



posted on Jun, 20 2018 @ 01:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: whereislogic

its not a myth that humans and chimps share 99% of their genome. this is proven fact. here are some more facts:

chickens/humans 60%

fruit flies/humans 60%

bananas/humans 60%





The OP is suggesting that Anderson is using a different counting system so the 99% is incorrect.

No I wasn't. Anderson isn't using any personal counting system. Math works the way it works. If the fact that the chimp genome has at least 1% more nucleotide bases than the human genome (some estimates ranging from 8-18%) has no meaning for anyone here using the 99% slogan, then I doubt any further attempt by me to explain why that is an issue for that claim is rather futile. As would be further getting into the other issue mentioned in the 1st video about that subject and where the 99% number comes from.

This should be simple, it's basic math. Rephrase the slogan all you want, the human and chimp genomes are at least more than 1% different, according to some estimates at least 8-18% different and then some, cause the remaining nucleotide bases are not in the same order or location in the chromosomes, which is a crucial aspect of the "multi-dimensional" genetic code (referring to Dr. Carter's explanation what he means by that word, which is also partly discussed in the timeframes I gave for that video).


However you slice it it shows more similarity between primates than say between a primate and a rodent, and between a primate and a rodent than a primate and a plant, and no it is not just functional similarity but inert mutations and even slightly detrimental ones. And again if you have say 100s of inert mutations shared, there's no reason for these to be shared.



posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

...It's like claiming you've provided "proof of concept" for building a particular airplane by welding 2 pieces of metal together. ...

Or to put it into the words of Phil Cohen and stay on the main issue here:


...Skeptics, observes Cohen, “argued that it was too great a leap from showing that two RNA molecules partook in a bit of self mutilation in a test tube, to claiming that RNA was capable of running a cell single-handed and triggering the emergence of life on Earth.”


Too great a leap of faith for me as well. Just like my airplane and 2 pieces of metal example. And the more recent experiments change nothing about that situation. ...

Talking about airplanes and the explanations: 'design, creation' vs 'evolution, by chance or accident, nature did it', 'nature found a way...', etc.:

Feathers—A Marvel of Design

...
“A Little Too Perfect”

Safe airplanes are the product of painstaking design, engineering, and craftsmanship. What about birds and feathers? In the absence of fossil evidence, controversy rages among evolutionists over how feathers originated. “Fundamentalist fervor,” “vitriolic name-calling,” and “paleontological passion” pervade the debate, states the magazine Science News. One evolutionary biologist, who organized a symposium on feather evolution, confessed: “I never dreamed that any scientific matter could possibly generate such bad personal behavior and such bitterness.” If feathers clearly evolved, why should discussions of the process become so vitriolic?

“Feathers are a little too perfect​—that’s the problem,” notes Yale University’s Manual of Ornithology—​Avian Structure and Function. Feathers give no indication that they ever needed improvement. In fact, the “earliest known fossil feather is so modern-looking as to be indistinguishable from the feathers of birds flying today.”* Yet, evolutionary theory teaches that feathers must be the result of gradual, cumulative change in earlier skin outgrowths. Moreover, “feathers could not have evolved without some plausible adaptive value in all of the intermediate steps,” says the Manual. [*: The fossil feather is from archaeopteryx, an extinct creature sometimes presented as a “missing link” in the line of descent to modern birds. Most paleontologists, however, no longer consider it an ancestor of modern birds.]

To put it simply, even in theory, evolution could not produce a feather unless each step in a long series of random, inheritable changes in feather structure significantly improved the animal’s chances for survival. Even many evolutionists find it a stretch of the imagination that something as complex and functionally perfect as a feather could arise in such a way.
Further, if feathers developed progressively over a long period of time, the fossil record should contain intermediate forms. But none have ever been found, only traces of fully formed feathers. “Unfortunately for evolutionary theory, feathers are very complicated,” states the Manual.
...
Keep in mind, too, that every bird develops from a tiny cell that contains the complete instructions for its growth and instincts, so that one day it can take to the sky. Could all this arise from a long string of advantageous accidents? Or is the simplest explanation also the most reasonable and scientific one​—that birds and their feathers bear the marks of a supremely intelligent Maker? The evidence speaks for itself.​—Romans 1:20.

Romans 1:20

For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.
edit on 22-6-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 23  24  25   >>

log in

join